Quote from: Mr. GC;589688Nope, but I would like people to stop sperging about literal basket weaving when that's never been what this is about and so people are having to do some fucking contortionist bullshit to try and find a position that makes them seem correct.

Have you considered that maybe it is you who are engaged in the mental gymnastics here to justify your position?

Quote from: jeff37923;589689Have you considered that maybe it is you who are engaged in the mental gymnastics here to justify your position?

That'd require my position to be somehow uncertain. As this is something that has been proven beyond all doubt for myself and others...

Still waiting on people to take me up on what I actually said. Namely weak classes vs weak classes = party loses anyways.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589688Nope, but I would like people to stop sperging about literal basket weaving when that's never been what this is about and so people are having to do some fucking contortionist bullshit to try and find a position that makes them seem correct.

Maybe one should just refrain from calling people names after graduating from junior high, and then ther wouldn't be the need to defend the name-calling as if it in someway matters .

Quote from: Mr. GC;589690Still waiting on people to take me up on what I actually said. Namely weak classes vs weak classes = party loses anyways.

I don't play RPGs with classes.

Quote from: TristramEvans;589694Maybe one should just refrain from calling people names after graduating from junior high.

You're arguing with a man with a very myopic view of what competition is, and does not comprehend why TRPGs don't fit that ridiculously narrow view.  Just shun him.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589688Nope, but I would like people to stop sperging about literal basket weaving when that's never been what this is about and so people are having to do some fucking contortionist bullshit to try and find a position that makes them seem correct.

As I said: you fail at imagination. Additionally, if you can't extrapolate to other skills, any skills, based on the few specific examples which have been thrown at you, I'm forced to conclude you are also failing at basic Logic 101.

At the end of this conversation we'll have a whole cursus made out just for you to get up to speed with normal people with standard communication skills, an imagination to work with and logic with which they might extrapolate... isn't life wonderful?

PS: warning. There might be an actual argument amidst the sarcasm, i.e. that you might extrapolate on the examples involving the basket weaving skill to extend their sustaining logic to all kinds of skills and abilities in the game.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589656Absolutely wrong. Care to prove it? If yes, I can easily demonstrate how weak parties lose to even weak encounters. If no, stop talking.

Hey cool!  Alrighty.  I do lots of gaming with one player.  

Lets say PC is a kid living on the streets of Greyhawk.  Ostensibly the lesser member of a street gang, picked on by the bigger kids but the gang leader has a soft spot for him.  Gimpy Rogue build who schlubbed Dex in favor of decent Intelligence and Wisdom.  I'm DM, time for the game to start.

Word has gotten around that one of the gang members has come up missing.  The other boys went off looking for him, but didn't let you tag along.  Whatcha wanna do?

Quote from: Mr. GC;589659But by all means, come at me. Prove me wrong. If you can. Do you accept the gauntlet?

You really, really just don't get it, do you?

Quote from: Mr. GC;589656I can easily demonstrate how weak parties lose to even weak encounters.

That is called a 'claim'.  Those require evidence.  If you do not have the 'evidence', it's best not to make a 'claim'.  If you rush on ahead and make a 'claim' anyway in the hopes that bluster will carry the day for you, it behooves you to then gather the 'evidence' to support it as quickly as possible.  If you continue to neglect the 'evidence' that others say you need to present, that doesn't mean those others have to prove anything.  It means you have utterly failed to present a sound or cogent argument.  Which means you fail over all, and don't get to then claim you didn't.  In other words, other people don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right.

Claims require evidence; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am sure you are going to start wailing that these demands aren't made of everyone else here.  That's because the rest of us are fairly careful about presenting our claims as preferences and not as objective facts.

So, demonstrate how a weak party can lose to a weak encounter.  You made the claim, you promised the demonstration, the stage is yours to command.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589690Still waiting on people to take me up on what I actually said. Namely weak classes vs weak classes = party loses anyways.

I've 'taken you up' on this numerous times:  There are no weak classes, only weak players.  If the only game you can play is 20Int Wizard with massive meta-magic feats and every possible spell available, then you are not only playing GM Pity with numbers, you aren't even taking the training wheels off.  Not exceptionally hardcore play.

Quote from: Old One Eye;589716Hey cool!  Alrighty.  I do lots of gaming with one player.  

Lets say PC is a kid living on the streets of Greyhawk.  Ostensibly the lesser member of a street gang, picked on by the bigger kids but the gang leader has a soft spot for him.  Gimpy Rogue build who schlubbed Dex in favor of decent Intelligence and Wisdom.  I'm DM, time for the game to start.

Word has gotten around that one of the gang members has come up missing.  The other boys went off looking for him, but didn't let you tag along.  Whatcha wanna do?

I don't think you understand how this game works. See, when you're called upon to prove something about a party/character, and you agree. That means you're the character. It doesn't mean I play the useless gimp.

Quote from: StormBringer;589717I am sure you are going to start wailing that these demands aren't made of everyone else here.  That's because the rest of us are fairly careful about presenting our claims as preferences and not as objective facts.

So, demonstrate how a weak party can lose to a weak encounter.  You made the claim, you promised the demonstration, the stage is yours to command.

Ok. I have a scenario pre written. You bring the party, I show how they lose to it. Deal? If so, I'll post the rules in a new thread.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589722Ok. I have a scenario pre written. You bring the party, I show how they lose to it. Deal? If so, I'll post the rules in a new thread.

That isn't demonstrating.  Lay out what you have and we'll talk about it; otherwise you are either stalling or blustering again.  We aren't going to spiral into "See?  He won't even take my challenge, I won lol!".  Post your 'weak' party, post your 'weak' monsters and we'll discuss it.  Also, I am sure there are at least several people here that can accurately translate 3.5 characters into 1st or 2nd Edition, and we can also see how this isn't a problem across editions.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589722I don't think you understand how this game works. See, when you're called upon to prove something about a party/character, and you agree. That means you're the character. It doesn't mean I play the useless gimp.

So, are you agreeing that a poorly built Rogue is a fine build with which to play the role of a child urchin on the mean fantasy streets?  

Or are you claiming that your roleplaying skills are insufficient to be able to play the role of a child urchin on the mean fantasy streets?

Or are you agreeing with pretty much everyone else on this thread, which is that different playstyles exist, of which, yours is but one style and playing the role of a child urchin is another style?

Or is your definition of roleplaying so restricted that you would not even consider playing the role of a child urchin to be roleplaying?

Quote from: Mr. GC;589722Ok. I have a scenario pre written. You bring the party, I show how they lose to it. Deal? If so, I'll post the rules in a new thread.

Sweet red beans on a bed of rice!  I'll bring the pre-built 1st level Fighter and 1st level Rogue from the 3.5 DMG.  You bring the new thread.

Quote from: Old One Eye;589726So, are you agreeing that a poorly built Rogue is a fine build with which to play the role of a child urchin on the mean fantasy streets?  

Or are you claiming that your roleplaying skills are insufficient to be able to play the role of a child urchin on the mean fantasy streets?

Or are you agreeing with pretty much everyone else on this thread, which is that different playstyles exist, of which, yours is but one style and playing the role of a child urchin is another style?

Or is your definition of roleplaying so restricted that you would not even consider playing the role of a child urchin to be roleplaying?

I think Risus would blow this fellow's tiny little mind.

Quote from: StormBringer;589724That isn't demonstrating.  Lay out what you have and we'll talk about it; otherwise you are either stalling or blustering again.  We aren't going to spiral into "See?  He won't even take my challenge, I won lol!".  Post your 'weak' party, post your 'weak' monsters and we'll discuss it.  Also, I am sure there are at least several people here that can accurately translate 3.5 characters into 1st or 2nd Edition, and we can also see how this isn't a problem across editions.

You mean so you can build characters specifically to beat that one specific challenge (and likely still fail)?

Nope. Either you accept and build the party or you don't and stop talking.

Quote from: Old One Eye;589727Sweet red beans on a bed of rice!  I'll bring the pre-built 1st level Fighter and 1st level Rogue from the 3.5 DMG.  You bring the new thread.

Who said it is level 1? But fine, I'll play.